Search

IntroductionContraceptive counseling during the perinatal period is an important component of comprehensive perinatal care. We synthesized research about contraceptive counseling during the perinatal period, which has not previously been systematically compiled.MethodsWe developed search criteria to identify articles listed in PubMed, Embase, and Popline databases published between 1992 and July 2022 that address patients' preferences for, and experiences of, perinatal contraceptive counseling, as well as health outcomes associated with this counseling. Search results were independently reviewed by multiple reviewers to assess relevance for the present review. Methods were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.ResultsThirty-four articles were included in the final full text review. Of the included articles, 10 included implementation and evaluation of a contraceptive counseling method or protocol, and 24 evaluated preferences for or experiences of existing contraceptive counseling in the perinatal period. Common themes included the acceptability of contraceptive counseling in the peripartum and postpartum periods, and a preference for contraceptive counseling at some point during the antenatal period and before the inpatient hospital experience, and direct provider-patient discussion instead of video or written material. Multiple studies suggest that timing, content, and modality should be individualized. In general, avoiding actual or perceived directiveness and providing multi-modal counseling that includes both written educational materials and patient-provider conversations was desired.DiscussionThe perinatal period constitutes a critical opportunity to provide contraceptive counseling that can support pregnant and postpartum people's management of their reproductive futures. The reviewed studies highlight the importance of patient-centered approach to providing this care, including flexibility of timing, content, and modality to accommodate individual preferences.

OBJECTIVE: The Family Integrated Care (FICare) model improves outcomes for preterm infants and parents compared with family-centered care (FCC). FICare with mobile technology (mFICare) may improve uptake and impact. Research on FICare in the United States (US) is scarce and little is known about parents experience. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with nine parents, exploring their NICU experiences, participation in and perceptions of the mFICare program. A directed content analysis approach was used, and common themes were derived from the data. RESULTS: Overall, parents had positive NICU experiences and found mFICare helpful in meeting three common parenting priorities: actively caring for their infant, learning how to care for their infant, and learning about the clinical status of their infant. They described alignment and misalignment with mFICare components relative to their personal parenting priorities and offered suggestions for improvement. Nurses were noted to play key roles in providing or facilitating parent support and encouragement to participate in mFICare and parenting activities. CONCLUSION: The mFICare program showed potential for parental acceptance and participation in US NICUs. INNOVATION: The mFICare model is an innovation in neonatal care that can advance the consistent delivery of NICU family-centered care planning and caregiving.Clinical Trial Registration:NCT03418870 01/02/2018.

BACKGROUND: The intricate balance between the advantages and risks of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) impedes the utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS). Guiding shared decision-making (SDM) for well-informed choices regarding LCS is pivotal. There has been a notable increase in research related to SDM. However, these studies possess limitations. For example, they may ignore the identification of decision support and needs from the perspective of health care providers and high-risk groups. Additionally, these studies have not adequately addressed the complete SDM process, including pre-decisional needs, the decision-making process, and post-decision experiences. Furthermore, the East-West divide of SDM has been largely ignored. This study aimed to explore the decisional needs and support for shared decision-making for LCS among health care providers and high-risk groups in China. METHODS: Informed by the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework, we conducted qualitative, face-to-face in-depth interviews to explore shared decision-making among 30 lung cancer high-risk individuals and 9 health care providers. Content analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: We identified 4 decisional needs that impair shared decision-making: (1) LCS knowledge deficit; (2) inadequate supportive resources; (3) shared decision-making conceptual bias; and (4) delicate doctor-patient bonds. We identified 3 decision supports: (1) providing information throughout the LCS process; (2) providing shared decision-making decision coaching; and (3) providing decision tools. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers valuable insights into the decisional needs and support required to undergo LCS among high-risk individuals and perspectives from health care providers. Future studies should aim to design interventions that enhance the quality of shared decision-making by offering LCS information, decision tools for LCS, and decision coaching for shared decision-making (e.g., through community nurses). Simultaneously, it is crucial to assess individuals needs for effective deliberation to prevent conflicts and regrets after arriving at a decision.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the shared decision-making (SDM) needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital. Understanding this may improve SDM and cancer care quality in this vulnerable population. METHODS: A single-site, mixed-methods study of hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer, caregivers, and oncologists was conducted. After discharge, patient ± caregiver semi-structured interviews exploring SDM needs, barriers, and facilitators regarding their most important upcoming cancer-related decision were conducted. Oncologists were surveyed about patient knowledge and SDM needs using closed- and open-ended questions, respectively. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data with a focus on themes unique to or amplified by hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were performed for quantitative data. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers reported high SDM needs surrounding treatment and prognostic information, leading to decisional conflict. Eight themes emerged: anticipated cancer treatment decisions, variable control preferences in decision-making, high cancer-related information needs and uncertainty, barriers and facilitators to information gathering during and post hospitalization, and decision-making facilitators. Among 32 oncologists, most (56%) reported patients were poorly informed about treatment and prognosis. Oncologists reported variable expectations about patient knowledge after hospitalization, facilitators to patient decision-making, and patient uncertainty while awaiting an outpatient oncologist appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer in the hospital have high SDM needs and experience decisional conflict. This may be due to barriers unique to or exacerbated by hospitalization. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address these barriers and enhance the facilitators identified in this study.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use. RECENT FINDINGS: With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

Background: The term end-stage renal disease (ESRD) refers to the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Not all ESRD patients are suitable for dialysis treatment, which despite its advantages, is not without risks. Shared nephrologist-patient decision-making could be beneficial at this stage, yet little is known about such practices in Israel. This study aimed at examining the practice of shared decision-making (SDM) between nephrologists and ESRD patients in Israel, while exploring related conflicts, ethical dilemmas, and considerations. Methods: The descriptive-quantitative approach applied in this study included a validated questionnaire for nephrologists, based on Emanual and Emanual (1992). The survey, which was distributed via social-media platforms and snowball sampling, was completed by 169 nephrologists. Data analysis included t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and t-tests and f-tests for independence. Descriptive analysis examined attitudes towards SDM in end-of-life care for ESRD patients. Results: The findings show that the research sample did not include nephrologists who typically act according to the paternalistic decision-making style. Rather, 53% of the respondents were found to act in line with the informative decision-making style, while 47% act according to the interpretive decision-making style. Almost 70% of all respondents reported their discussing quality-of-life with patients; 63.4% provide prognostic assessments; 61.5% inquire about the patient's desired place of death; 58.6% ask about advance directives or power-of-attorney; and 57.4% inquire about cultural and religious beliefs in end-of-life treatment. Additionally, informative nephrologists tend to promote the patients' autonomy over their health (P < 0.001); they are also in favor of conservative treatment, compared to paternalistic and interpretive nephrologists, and use less invasive methods than other nephrologists (P = 0.02). Conclusions: Nephrologists in Israel only partially pursue an SDM model, which has the potential to improve quality-of-care for ESRD patients and their families. SDM programs should be developed and implemented for increasing such practices among nephrologists, thereby expanding the possibilities for providing conservative care at end-of-life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals' preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals' preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy. Methods: Design: Convergent mixed-methods. Participants: Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk. Intervention: A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy. Analysis: Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke's pentad of motives framework: act (what needs to be done), scene (patient's context), agent (perspectives and influence of people involved in the decision), agency (aspects of the medication), and purpose (patient's goals). We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance. Results: We comprehensively determined preferences for using LMWH by pregnant individuals at risk of VTE: through value elicitation exercises we found that the least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a 'healthy pregnancy'); through interviews we found that: previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks were described (agency). For participants, the main goal of using LMWH was avoiding any risks in pregnancy (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance and discordance between health states and motives. Conclusions: Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis article aims to summarize the existing evidence on shared decision-making and collaborative care models for acute and chronic pain management. We searched the PubMed database for articles published between 1980 and 2023 and scanned included articles’ references to identify additional sources. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Studies met inclusion criteria if they implemented or evaluated shared decision-making or collaborative care interventions in patients with acute or chronic pain. A total of 690 articles were reviewed, with 32 full text articles meeting inclusion criteria. Most studies assessed changes in prescription opioid quantities and patient-reported pain levels. Secondary measures generally included patient satisfaction, 30-day refill rate, and use of non-opioid analgesics. Shared decision-making and collaborative care models are promising interventions to improve pain management. These interventions are effective at reducing opioid consumption among acute and chronic pain patients without compromising patient-reported pain levels. There is further research needed to evaluate how shared decision-making and collaborative care interventions impact patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient-provider communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why you should read this article: • To discover how the virtual nominal group technique (vNGT) effectively overcomes the limitations of traditional face-to-face nominal group technique (NGT) • To gain insights into the practical applications and challenges of vNGT in healthcare research and policy formulation, enhancing your understanding of remote collaboration methods • To learn about the adaptability and benefits of vNGT, including its ability to facilitate inclusive, cost-effective and time-efficient consensus-building processes across diverse geographic locations. Background: Nominal group technique (NGT) is widely used in healthcare research to facilitate decision-making and consensus-building. Traditional NGT requires face-to-face interaction and its limitations include potential biases, logistical challenges and high costs. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a shift to virtual methods, which led to the development of virtual nominal group technique (vNGT). Aim To reflect on the use of vNGT, particularly in the context of Ghader et al (2023), to understand its effectiveness in overcoming the limitations of traditional NGT and on its applicability in pandemic-affected scenarios. Method: This paper reviews and discusses literature on the use and effectiveness of NGT compared to other consensus-building methods and examines the emergence of vNGT in overcoming the limitations of traditional NGT. The authors also reflect on their use of vNGT in a study to identify cardiovascular research priorities in the UAE and provide details of its implementation. Discussion: vNGT bridges the gap between the localised nature of traditional NGT and the global reach of the Delphi technique. It allows for the inclusion of diverse participants, saves costs and offers time-efficiency. The study demonstrated vNGT’s adaptability, with participants engaging in idea generation, discussion and prioritisation using online tools. However, challenges persist with vNGT, including reduced accessibility for certain demographics, timing issues across time zones and technical difficulties. Conclusion: vNGT successfully integrates the interactive, consensus-building aspects of NGT with the broad reach of Delphi. It can be valuable in research and decision-making, especially in an era of increased remote collaboration. Implications for practice: vNGT can significantly impact healthcare research and policy formulation by enabling more inclusive, cost-effective and timely consensus-building processes. However, considerations for accessibility and technical support are crucial for its wider adoption and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: At term, about 3–4% of all singleton pregnancies present as breech. MRI-based pelvimetry is a valuable tool to support selection of adequate candidates for a trial-of-labor in women expecting term breech babies. Shared decision-making is playing an increasingly important role in obstetrics. Since the divergent existing knowledge of breech term delivery needs to be discussed with the pregnant woman, we examined the influence of MRI results on the shared decision-making process in women with term breech presentation. Methods: Between 08/2021 and 12/2022, anamnestic and clinical parameters were collected from singleton pregnancies expecting term breech babies resulting in birth at the Hanover Medical School. After information, written consent and inclusion, clinical parameters, the course of birth and the maternal and fetal outcome were collected retrospectively. 32 women participated in a postpartum questionnaire study on inquiry. The subsequent acquisition of information and the arguments in the decision-making process were determined. In addition, the sense of security and self-determination was asked both before and during birth. Results: 50% of the respondents had not decided for a mode of delivery before having MRI pelvimetry. After imaging and information, about the own pelvic dimensions and predictors for a successful vaginal birth, 80% of this subgroup decided to give birth vaginally. Over 40% of the collective descripted that they made a decision based on the result of MRI pelvimetry. None of the women felt to be insecure after having talked about the MRI results. The elective cesarean section group and the group of those who delivered vaginally were approximately equally highly satisfied with their feeling of self-determination of the birth mode. Overall, the study population had a very positive birth experience. The group of women who had delivered by elective cesarean showed a wider range in their assessment and appeared to perceive the experience more negative than the group of women who had a vaginal birth or emergency cesarean. Fetal and maternal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Discussion: MRT pelvimetry measurements can be used as a predictor for a successful vaginal breech delivery. The additional information obtained from the MRI measurements can be used in the shared decision-making process to decide more easily on the mode of delivery while improving women's awareness and safety. A balanced education on rare and frequently adverse events of vaginal delivery and cesarean section and patient expectations about labor processes must be taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care. Methods: The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants. Results: From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT. Conclusions: Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnant women involved in decisions about their care report better health outcomes for themselves and their children. Shared decision‐making (SDM) is a priority for health services; however, there is limited research on factors that help and hinder SDM in hospital‐based maternity settings. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to SDM in a large tertiary maternity care service from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Methods: Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 39 participants including women, clinicians, health service administrators and decision‐makers, and government policymakers. The interview guide and thematic analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM. Results: Women expect to be included in decisions about their care. Health service administrators and decision‐makers, government policymakers, and most clinicians want to include them in decisions. Key barriers to SDM included lack of care continuity, knowledge, and clinician skills, as well as professional role and decision‐making factors. Key facilitators pertained to policy and guideline changes, increased knowledge, professional role factors, and social influences. Conclusion: This study revealed common barriers and facilitators to SDM and highlighted the need to consider perspectives outside the patient–clinician dyad. It adds to the limited literature on barriers and facilitators to SDM in hospital care settings. Organizational‐ and system‐wide changes to service delivery are necessary to facilitate SDM. These changes may be enabled by education and training, changes to policies and guidelines to include and support SDM, and adequately timed information provision to enable SDM conversations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation of shared decision‐making in antenatal care has had limited exploration. Objective: To assess what is known about shared decision‐making in antenatal care. Search Strategy: Five databases were searched (1997–2022) limited to English language studies from OECD countries. Data Collection and Analysis: A data collection table was constructed with findings from 32 papers. A narrative synthesis was conducted with subsequent thematic analysis of included papers. Main Results: Four areas of decision‐making were identified with six themes revealing enablers and barriers to shared decision‐making in antenatal care. Conclusion: Implementation of shared decision‐making requires continuity, time and personalisation of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The knowledge of barriers from the parental perspective is essential for facilitating shared decision-making in the field of pediatric asthma. Participants who were parents of children with a diagnosis of asthma were recruited, and in-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted. The interview transcripts were analyzed thematically using framework methods. Seventeen participants undertook interviews. Three themes and nine subthemes emerged: (1) decision-making need level—limited understanding of decision-making knowledge, ambiguity regarding self-empowerment roles, and lack of family member support; (2) decision-making support level—insufficient ability to evaluate information, inefficient communication with health care professionals, and excessive use of professional terminology; and (3) decision-making outcome level—doubts about the final decision-making choices, time constraints on decision-making, and absence of mechanisms to track decisions made. The findings would serve as crucial foundations for the development of decision-aid programs within the context of pediatric asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is essential in managing serious and chronic illnesses to ensure that patients receive care aligned with their personal values, goals, and preferences. This review focuses on integrating ACP in the treatment of patients receiving implantable left ventricular assist devices (VADs). The heart failure palliative care team developed a unique advance directive form and pamphlet to facilitate ACP discussions, emphasizing not only medical treatment preferences but also patients' values and life goals. The study highlights the distinction between bridge to transplantation (BTT) and destination therapy (DT) in VAD patients, with different goals and considerations for ACP. The use of decision aids developed especially for DT candidates as a communication tool helps in sharing patients' wishes and facilitates shared decision-making, particularly in the complex decisions surrounding DT therapy. Challenges in implementing ACP, such as time constraints due to urgent medical conditions, difficulties in patient communication, and the recent COVID-19 pandemic, are addressed. The need for a comprehensive healthcare system capable of supporting patients' ACP wishes, especially in the community setting, is also pointed out. Future directions include not only developing materials to ease ACP discussions and ensuring that ACP content is shared among healthcare providers to foster collaborative and detailed planning, but also a call for widespread adoption of ACP in Japan. This is a translation of a paper written in Japanese Journal of Artificial Organs (Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 89–92) with additions and corrections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Adolescent contraceptive decision‐making is influenced by a number of patient and clinician‐driven factors. Although the AAP continues to endorse an efficacy‐based model of contraceptive counseling, many professional organizations are shifting to a shared decision‐making model as the optimal approach for providing unbiased and patient‐driven contraceptive counseling. While SDM is intended to reduce the influence of clinician bias, it can exacerbate inequity if a clinician tailors a conversation based on their assumptions of a patient's goals or preferences. In this qualitative study, we explored self‐reported contraceptive counseling practices among US‐based clinicians who see adolescent patients to assess how these practices create barriers or facilitators to SDM and person‐centered contraceptive care.We interviewed 16 clinicians at the 2022 AAP Annual Meeting who counsel adolescent patients about contraception. We used thematic content analysis to analyze interview transcripts using Dedoose.We identified six aspects of contraceptive counseling that clinicians commonly employed with adolescent patients. These were: (1) sociodemographic characteristics driving counseling, (2) reliance on tiered effectiveness counseling, (3) initiating counseling conversations using “ask then explain” or “explain then ask” approaches, (4) emphasis on teen pregnancy prevention, (5) the influence of method accessibility on counseling, and (6) parental involvement in decision‐making and patient confidentiality. We describe how these themes align with or diverge from each component of the SDM framework.Clinicians in this study frequently engaged in non‐patient‐centered techniques during contraceptive counseling with adolescents. These findings can inform practice recommendations to support clinicians in providing high‐quality contraceptive counseling using shared decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary What Is Known on the Subject? What the Paper Adds to Existing Knowledge? What Are the Implications for Practice? Introduction Aim/Question Methods Results Conclusion Implications for the Practice Patients do not always receive enough information about their diagnosis and their perceived participation in decision‐making about their treatment is low. Some participants reported feeling very uncertain when the physician invited them to choose between these options. Others users expressed their satisfaction with the trend away from paternalistic attitudes in the health system. There is a trend towards pharmacological prescription as a first approximation. This contrasts with the recommendations of scientific organizations based on evidence and cost‐effectiveness studies on the offer of psychological interventions as the first option. The user groups pointed out that active coping, based on exposure to anxiety‐generating situations, made a significant contribution to alleviating their anxiety disorders. However, some of those interviewed rejected this type of intervention. Users diagnosed with anxiety disorders miss more information about the disorder and participation in its treatment. Opposite positions coexist in terms of participation in the choice of treatment. Pharmacological treatment is most commonly the first option offered. This study is an example in itself of the involvement of users in the healthcare process, and therefore placing them at the centre of attention, as reflected in healthcare policies and clinical practice guidelines. It promotes the identification of needs that users diagnosed of anxiety disorders may have, with the aim of putting in place, from healthcare professionals and health services, the necessary supports adapted to these. Mental health nurses are well‐positioned to offer support and guidance during the process of involvement and shared decision‐making. An essential aspect of mental health treatment and recovery is the degree of involvement by health service users in the process.Explore the values, demands and preferences of persons diagnosed with anxiety disorders, their participation in the treatment provided, and the response of the health system in this regard.A qualitative study was conducted, with 51 participants. Nine focus groups and four in‐depth interviews took place.Three broad categories were identified: (1) diagnosis; (2) treatment options offered and shared decision‐making; and (3) coping with the disorder. Sometimes patients do not receive enough information to cover their needs. A trend towards drug prescription as a first approach was observed, while active coping based on exposure to anxiogenic situations was indicated as the most effective option.Shared decision‐making is a necessary aspect of treatment, and the therapeutic process should be adapted to match the service user's preferences, values and needs.This research identifies the needs of patients diagnosed with anxiety disorders and promotes, therefore, from healthcare professionals and services, the provision of measures to meet these needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Aim Methods Analysis Findings Conclusions Although prenatal care providers aim to prepare women for first childbirth, little research has explored retrospectively what birthing people would like to have known before first childbirth.To describe women's reports of what they would like to have known before first childbirth but feel they were not told.This is a secondary analysis of the First Baby Study, a large prospective cohort study conducted in Pennsylvania, USA. Telephone interviews were conducted with 3006 women 1 month after their first childbirth. Women were first asked: “Was there anything that you would have liked to have known before your delivery that you were not told?”. If “yes” they were asked a second question: “Please tell me what you would have liked to have known before your delivery”.A convergent mixed‐methods analysis including descriptive analytics to compare characteristics of women by answers to the first question, and qualitative content analysis of women's open‐ended answers to the second question.A total of 441 women (14.7%) reported there was something they would like to have known before their first childbirth. Women described that communication with care providers was their main concern. They would have liked a better understanding of their options before birth, more agency in decision‐making, and more information about the topics of their body, their birth, their baby, and what to expect beyond birth.Results highlight important topics for childbirth education, and the impact of gaps in shared decision‐making, patient–provider communication, and supportive care practices for first childbirth, especially where women have identified vulnerabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess whether varying input communication factors impacted participants' perceived confidence, motivation, and likelihood to act (i.e., share or discuss their preferences and values with their clinician or family/caregiver) when receiving tailored communication from a values-clarification tool. Methods: This study was conducted over a two-month period at the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital. Patients with hematologic malignancies participated in evaluating three distinct messages that varied on three input communication factors. Results: Results from this study indicate that most study participants preferred messages that were moderately direct, contained succinct question prompts, and that were empowering. Results also indicate that diverse perspectives and external influences may impact confidence and motivation toward discussing preferences with their clinicians. Discussion: Our findings suggest the importance of validating the input communication factors within values-clarification tools before presenting results to patients and the need to evaluate potential disparities in patients' participation toward discussing their preferences. Evidence from this study provides direction for future research efforts focused on improving shared decision-making among older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: Women undergoing surgery for apical pelvic organ prolapse have several medically sound options for specific surgical approaches. Methods: We review the principles of shared decision-making as they pertain to surgery for prolapse. We review the literature supporting the superior sacrocolpopexy as a durable treatment for prolapse and the factors that may differentiate it from other repairs in risk and benefit. Results: We emphasize the importance of collaboration between patients and surgeons in surgical decision-making. Conclusion: All medically appropriate patients who desire reconstructive surgery for prolapse should be offered sacrocolpopexy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Shared decision-making is recommended for patients considering treatment options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic coronary artery disease (CAD). This review aims to systematically identify and assess patient decision aids (PtDAs) for chronic CAD and AS and evaluate the international evidence on their effectiveness for improving the quality of decision-making. Methods and results Five databases (Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo), clinical trial registers, and 30 PtDA repositories/websites were searched from 2006 to March 2023. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were completed independently by multiple reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software. Eleven AS and 10 CAD PtDAs were identified; seven were less than 5 years old. Over half of the PtDAs were web based and the remainder paper based. One AS and two CAD PtDAs fully/partially achieved international PtDA quality criteria. Ten studies were included in the review; four reported on the development/evaluation of AS PtDAs and six on CAD PtDAs. Most studies were conducted in the USA with White, well-educated, English-speaking participants. No studies fulfilled all quality criteria for reporting PtDA development and evaluation. Meta-analyses found that PtDAs significantly increased patient knowledge compared with 'usual care' (mean difference: 0.620; 95% confidence interval 0.396–0.845, P < 0.001) but did not change decisional conflict. Conclusion Patients who use PtDAs when considering treatments for AS or chronic CAD are likely to be better informed than those who do not. Existing PtDAs may not meet the needs of people with low health literacy levels as they are rarely involved in their development. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42021264700. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Yet dialysis is not suitable for all ESRD patients. Moreover, while shared decision-making (SDM) is the preferred model for making medical decisions, little is known about SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients in Israel. Research Objective: Assessing the views, attitudes, practices, and ethical dilemmas of nephrology nurses in Israel regarding SDM with ESRD patients. Methods: Using the descriptive quantitative approach, questionnaires were completed by 444 nephrology nurses in Israel. In addition to conducting descriptive statistics, t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and both tests for independence were also performed. Ethical Considerations: The research aims, expected advantages and risks have been explained to respondents before completing the questionnaire to secure informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Haifa (Approval # 411/21). Results: About one-third (30%–36.5%) of nurses reported discussing quality of life issues with ESRD patients, asking about their advance directives/power of attorney, exploring cultural/religious beliefs in end-of-life care, and ask about their preferred place of death. Nurses who convey high levels of patient-centered care (68.9%, p <0.0001), have high end-of-life training (76.2%, p <0.0001), and report cooperating with interdisciplinary teams (63.8%, p = 0.0415), also reported higher SDM practices than others. Nurses who refer less patients to palliative care (70%, p <0.0001) reported higher involvement in SDM compared to other nurses. Conclusions: Nephrology nurses in Israel do not tend to implement the SDM model, despite its potential for improving quality of life for ESRD patients and their families and increasing conservative care options. Policy makers and educators in Israel should develop and implement training programs and support in the workplace, to enhance SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the nationwide online decision aid 'Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs' (established in 2016, >11.000 users and 60 new users/week) for patients with non‐metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), from the perspective of patients and urologists. Patients and Methods: To provide personalised information, the tool collects most of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, personal preferences, psychological features, and a validated rating of the tool. To evaluate urologists' opinions, we developed a structured two‐page questionnaire. All data were collected anonymously. Results: From June 2016 to December 2020, 11 290 patients used the PCa decision aid. Their median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 67 (61–72) years. The median (IQR) time from initial diagnosis to using the tool was 4 (3–7) weeks. In all, 87.7% of users reported high satisfaction. In a multivariable model, predictors for considering observation were higher knowledge, using the decision aid alone, lower oncological risk, normal erectile function, and respective personal preferences. Of 194 urologists, 91 (47%) had implemented the decision aid in their clinical practice. The urologists' mean (SD) satisfaction score (1 'very good'; 6 'unsatisfactory') with it was 1.45 (0.55), and 92% recommended it. Half of the urologists reported time savings. Conclusion: Patients and urologists report a very high level of acceptance and satisfaction with this online tool. It offers advantages in shared decision‐making and time efficiency. The usage of the decision aid might improve the adoption of active surveillance and watchful waiting when indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer contains cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and chemotherapy. Achieving successful CRS (≤ 1 cm residual disease) is prognostically important, but may not be feasible peri-operatively while still risking complications. Therefore, patients' treatment expectations are important to discuss. We investigated patient considerations for interval CRS. Patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer planned for interval CRS completed a questionnaire about the impact of chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and becoming care-dependent on decision-making regarding CRS. The questionnaire included a vignette study, in which patients repeatedly chose between two treatment scenarios with varying levels for chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and risk of complications including stoma. Patient preferences were analyzed, including differences between patients aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years. Among 85 included patients, 31 (37%) patients considered interval CRS worthwhile irrespective of survival benefit and 33 (39%) irrespective of chance of successful surgery. However, 34 patients (41%) considered interval CRS only worthwhile if survival benefit was > 12 months, while 41 (49%) thought so if chance of successful surgery was ≥ 25%. Older patients considered these factors more important. Overall, 27% considered becoming permanently dependent of home care unacceptable. In the vignette study (n = 72) risk of complications and stoma were considered less important than chance of successful CRS and survival benefit. Survival benefit, chance of successful surgery and becoming care-dependent are important factors in patient's decision for interval CRS, while risk of complications and stoma are less important. Our results are useful in shared decision-making for interval CRS in ovarian cancer. • For one-third of the patients, chance of successful surgery or survival gain did not influence decision-making for surgery. • Forty-one percent of the patients considered interval cytoreductive surgery worthwhile if survival gain was > 12 months. • Approximately half of the patients considered cytoreductive surgery worthwhile if chance of successful surgery was ≥ 25%. • Older patients (aged ≥ 70 years) consider these factors of greater importance compared to younger patients. • Risk of complications and stoma were considered less important than chance of successful surgery or survival gain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effects of oral nutritional supplements (ONS), parenteral nutrition (PN), and enteral nutrition (EN) on the recovery of patients who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery. Methods: The shared decision-making process assigned 37, 56, and 35 patients to the ONS, PN, and EN groups, respectively. Details such as demographic data, duration of hospitalization, cost of nutritional therapy, nutritional assessments, patients’ satisfaction, and compliance, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) score, and relevant biochemical indices were systematically recorded and compared between the groups. Results: Patients with healthier biochemical indices and physical states at baseline, including a higher body mass index, preferred ONS. Patients using dentures and those with medical insurance often chose EN, while patients with recurrent disease preferred PN. Patients receiving EN had a similar duration of hospitalization to patients receiving ONS and also had the lowest nutritional costs. Patients receiving ONS had higher lymphocyte counts and levels of hemoglobin, albumin, and C-reactive protein. Patients in the PN group had elevated levels of serum potassium, chlorine, and sodium, while those receiving EN reported higher HAM-A scores, indicating greater anxiety than their counterparts. Predischarge surveys showed higher satisfaction and compliance in the PN and ONS groups than in the EN group. The PN group reported more adverse symptoms. At 7 days post-discharge, patients with EN reported a greater feeling of well-being. Conclusion: ONS is the optimal choice for patients in good preoperative conditions, while PN is preferred during disease recurrence or when financially feasible. EN is suitable for patients using dentures or those with limited finances despite its potential psychological discomfort. Future studies with increased sample sizes and longer follow-up duration are necessary to corroborate our findings. The Trial Registration Number is ChiCTR2100049547. The date of registration is August 2, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the role of health communication in Shared Decision‐Making (SDM) between nursing staff and older people in the community setting. Background: Society and healthcare services are marked by an exponentially ageing population, leading to a significant proportion of patients being older adults with highly demanding care needs. Scientific literature supports shared decision‐making as a process that engages patients in their care. However, the increasing use of technology and the consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic have influenced how nurses communicate with older patients. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how to develop health communication to reach effective, shared decision‐making processes. Methods: Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review method, the literature search comprised five databases: PubMed, CINALH, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO. Results: The 12 included studies were synthesised into three study patterns: (1) nurse–older patient health communication relationship, (2) older patients' perspectives and (3) nontherapeutic communication in end‐of‐life care. Conclusion: This review underscored the crucial role of effective health communication in shaping SDM dynamics between nursing staff and older people in the community setting. Key elements included transparent information exchange, establishing trust and maintaining communication channels with informal caregiving networks. SDM actions were aligned with preserving older people's autonomy, but communication challenges persisted, particularly in end‐of‐life situations. Advanced care planning was recommended to address these shortcomings and improve communication among older people, healthcare professionals and families. Implications: Implementing educational measures based on verbal and nonverbal health communication in nursing training could be beneficial. Nursing research could continue to develop and refine specific communication strategies adapted to the social determinants of health for diverse clinical situations regarding older adults in the community setting. Reporting Method: The authors have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines through the PRISMA 2020 checklist. No Patient or Public Contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current fallback position for the elderly frail nearing the end of life (less than 12 months to live) is hospitalisation. There is a reluctance to use the term 'terminally ill' for this population, resulting in overtreatment, overdiagnosis and management that is not consistent with the wishes of people. This is the major contributor to the so‐called hospital crisis, including decreased capacity of hospitals, reduced ability to conduct elective surgery, increased attendances at emergency departments and ambulance ramping. The authors recently conducted the largest randomised study, to their knowledge, attempting to inform specialist hospital medical teams about the terminally ill status of their admitted patients. This information did not influence their clinical decisions in any way. The authors discuss the reasons why this may have occurred, such as the current avoidance of discussing death and dying by society and the concentration of healthcare workers on actively managing the acute presenting problem and ignoring the underlying prognosis in the elderly frail. The authors discuss ways of improving the management of the elderly nearing the end of life, such as more detailed goals of care discussions using the concept of shared decision‐making rather than simply completing Advanced Care Decision documents. Empowering people in this way could become the most important driver of people's health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common neurological disorder characterised by an urge to move arms and legs, usually associated with discomfort, pain, motor restlessness, and sleep disturbance. An individually adapted treatment is needed but difficult to optimise, which makes shared decision‐making (SDM) important. However, brief validated instruments on how patients with RLS perceive their involvement in treatment decisions are lacking. Therefore, the aim was to validate two instruments, SURE (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk–benefit ratio, Encouragement, i.e., to assess decisional conflict) and CollaboRATE (brief patient survey focused on SDM, i.e., to assess SDM), in patients with RLS. A cross‐sectional design, including 788 participants with RLS (65% females, mean [SD] age 70.8 [11.4] years) from a national patient organisation for RLS, was used. A postal survey was sent out to collect data regarding weight, height, comorbidities, demographics, and RLS‐related treatment data. The following instruments were included: the SURE, CollaboRATE, Restless Legs Syndrome‐6 Scale, and eHealth Literacy Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch models were used to assess the validity and reliability of the SURE and CollaboRATE. Measurement invariance, unidimensionality, and differential item functioning (DIF) across age, gender, and medication groups were assessed. The SURE and CollaboRATE were both identified as unidimensional instruments with satisfactory internal consistency. No DIF across age and gender was identified, while significant DIF was observed for both the SURE and CollaboRATE regarding medication use categories. However, both the SURE and CollaboRATE are potential instruments to be used in research, but also as reflection tools by healthcare professionals, patients, and students to explore and assess SDM, and support its development in clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We present a relationship‐centred shared‐decision‐making (RCSDM) process model to explicate factors that shape decision‐making processes during physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) encounters among patients, their care partners and practitioners. Existing shared decision‐making (SDM) models fall short in addressing the everyday decisions routinely made regarding persons with chronic disabilities who require high levels of support, their care partners and rehabilitation practitioners. In PMR, these everyday decisions are small scale, immediate and in service to a larger therapeutic goal. They can be thought of as micro‐decisions and involve multiple practitioners, care partners and patients. How micro‐decisions are made in this context is contingent on multiple roles and relationships among these relevant parties. Our model centres on micro‐decisions among patients, their care partners and practitioners based on our disorders of consciousness (DoC) research. Methods: To develop our model, we examined peer‐reviewed literature in SDM in PMR, chronic disability and person‐centeredness; formed collaborations and co‐created our constructs with rehabilitation practitioners and with care partners who have lived experience of caring for persons with DoC; analysed emerging empirical data and vetted early versions with expert scientific and clinical audiences. Our model builds from the core tenets of relational autonomy, and scholarship and activism of disability advocates. Findings: Our model conceptualizes four non‐hierarchical levels of analysis to understand the process of micro‐decision‐making in chronic disability and medical rehabilitation: social forces (historical and sociological); roles and relationships (multiple and intersecting); relational dimensions (interactional and contextual) and micro‐decision moments (initiation, response and closure). Discussion: Relationships among patients, their care partners and practitioners are the intersubjective milieu within which decisions are made. Our conceptual model explicates the process of micro‐decision‐making in PMR. Patient or Public Contribution: Care partners (or caregivers) and rehabilitation practitioners are active members of our team. We work together to develop research projects, collect, analyse and disseminate data. The conceptual model we present in this manuscript was co‐created—input from care partners and practitioners on previously collected data became the impetus to develop the RCSDM process model and share co‐authorship in this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision‐making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. Aim: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. Methods: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider‐facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient‐facing SDM tool. Results: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient‐facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient–provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is an effective treatment for menopause‐related symptoms. Menopause management guidelines recommend a personalized approach to menopause care, including MHT use. Decision‐making around menopause care is a complex, iterative process influenced by multiple factors framed by perspectives from both women and healthcare providers (HCPs). This narrative review aims to summarize evidence around factors affecting decision‐making regarding menopause‐related care. For HCPs, the provision of individualized risk estimates is challenging in practice given the number of potential benefits and risks to consider, and the complexity of the data available, especially within time‐limited consultations. Women seeking menopause care have the difficult task of making sense of the benefit versus risk profiles to make choices in line with their decisional needs influenced by sociocultural/economic, educational, demographic, and personal characteristics. The press, social media, and influential celebrities also impact the perception of menopause and decision‐making around it. Understanding these factors can lead to improved participation in shared decision‐making, satisfaction with the decision and decision‐making process, adherence to treatment, reduced decisional regret, efficient use of resources, and ultimately long‐term satisfaction with care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision-making (SDM) is on the NHS policy agenda, and the preferred model for preference-sensitive decisions. This study establishes baseline patient-perceived SDM in a radical head and neck cohort, and explores patients' views on SDM in a large, specialist trust. An SDM questionnaire was distributed to all radical head and neck radiotherapy patients (N = 165), June–December 2023. This combined a well-validated instrument for measuring SDM from the patient perspective, SDM-Q-9, with additional questions exploring patient views. Thematic analysis was used to construct and interpret themes. 65/165 (39%) questionnaires were returned. SDM-Q-9 mean standardised score was 78.6 (SD 26.3). There was a moderate ceiling effect (26%). Scores were not sensitive to sex (p = 0.64) or age (ρ = 0.1). Higher levels of SDM were perceived by participants who stated SDM was very important (51/65, 79%) than somewhat or not at all important (82.4 vs. 62.7; p = 0.02; Cohen d = 0.75). Individuals who discussed their personal priorities with the clinician (46/65, 70.8%), were more likely to be very satisfied with their involvement in SDM (89.1% vs. 52.9%). Thematic analysis generated three themes: Control, Desire for Transparency and Understanding, and Doctor as the Expert. Patient-perceived SDM levels are high for head and neck patients. Participants who value SDM also perceive higher levels of SDM. Patient satisfaction increases when individuals discuss their personal priorities. The modest response rate and self-selection bias affect the generalisability of the results. Only radiotherapy patients were included; those who chose alternative treatment may perceive different levels of SDM. The moderate ceiling effect may limit the use of SDM-Q-9 to measure impact of future interventions to improve SDM. SDM-Q-9 should be combined with an objective, observer measure of SDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with differences of sex development (DSDs) have complex anatomy and surgical needs related to both Mullerian and non-Mullerian structures. Approaches to vaginal reconstruction for these conditions are guided by individual anatomy, with the goal of establishing unobstructed outflow for the reproductive, urinary, and gastrointestinal tracts. Patients may have anatomy requiring vaginoplasty for either outflow tract obstruction or chosen sexual function. In this article, the authors focus on management of differences in vaginal anatomy with delayed vaginoplasty for the newborn with DSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are vital components of prenatal care. The first prenatal visit is a critical time in the decision-making process when patients decide whether to use these tests in addition to address a series of other essential prenatal care aspects. We conducted this study to examine the role of a shared decision-making (SDM) instrument to support these discussions. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of patients allocated to an SDM tool or usual care at their first prenatal visit. Participants completed a baseline survey to measure decision-making needs and preferences. Direct observation was conducted and analyzed using the OPTION scale to measure SDM during prenatal genetic testing discussions. Results: Levels of SDM were similar across groups (P = 0.081). The highest levels of SDM were observed during screening test discussions (NEST 2.4 ± 0.9 v. control 2.6 ± 1.0). Lowest levels were observed in discussions about patients' preference for risk versus diagnostic information (NEST 1.0 ± 1.1 v. control 1.2 ± 1.3). Conclusion: Study findings demonstrate the need for targeted patient-focused and provider-focused efforts to improve SDM to enhance patients' informed decision making about these options. Importantly, patients' baseline knowledge and attitudes need to be considered given that patients with less knowledge may need more carefully crafted communication. Highlights: Choices about whether, when, and how to use prenatal genetic tests are highly preference-based decisions, with patients' baseline attitudes about these options as a major driver in health care discussions. The decision-making process is also shaped by patient preferences regarding a shared or informed decision-making process for medical decisions that are highly personal and have significant ramifications for obstetric outcomes. There is a need to develop targeted efforts to improve decision making and enhance patients' ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic tests in early pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians' work is educating their patients, people's concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people's perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient's disease. Design: We recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient's ability to manage their disease, and the patient's trust in doctors. Results: Participants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient's diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3). Conclusions: Participants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients' concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education. Highlights: Understanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians. People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively. Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article we explore when professionals engage in co-production with vulnerable people, which could improve the inclusiveness of public services. The study was conducted in mental health care, through a survey with co-produced scenarios, among 177 professionals in five organizational units in the Netherlands. The results show that professionals' willingness to co-produce is primarily related to characteristics of the client, specific aspects of the treatment process and the progress of the treatment. Demographic factors such as age, gender and education do not appear to influence the willingness to co-produce to any significant degree. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Transoral laser microsurgery (TLMS) and radiotherapy (XRT) are mainstays of treatment for early glottic carcinoma (EGC). Here, we investigated case‐dependent provider treatment preferences and identify factors which impact decision‐making in EGC. Methods: This cross‐sectional survey of laryngologists, head‐and‐neck surgeons, and radiation oncologists presented five diagrammatic cases of progressively advanced EGC (T1/2, N0). Respondents indicated preference for TLMS or XRT and ranked factors which influenced their recommendation for each case. Analysis utilized descriptive statistics, Fischer's exact tests, and Kruskal–Wallis tests for nonparametric data. Results: A total of 141 complete responses (69.5% laryngologists) were received. Most respondents practiced in academic settings (93.5%) and within multidisciplinary teams (94.0%). Anterior commissure involvement was the most important a priori tumor factor for case‐independent treatment recommendation (Likert Scale: 4.22/5), followed by Laterality (Likert Scale: 4.02/5). Across all specialties, TLMS was recommended for unilateral T1a lesions. Laryngologists continued recommending TLMS in T2 lesions (41.0%) more than head‐and‐neck surgeons (5.0%) and radiation oncologists (0.0%). Across all cases, survival and voice outcomes were the most important clinical factors impacting treatment decisions. Radiation oncologists weighed voice more heavily than laryngologists in more complex presentations of EGC (rank: 1.6 vs. 2.7, Kruskall–Wallis: p < 0.05). Conclusions: In more complex clinical presentations of EGC, preference for TLMS compared to XRT differed across specialists, despite similar rankings of factors driving these treatment recommendations. This may be driven by differing experiences and viewpoints on case‐dependent voice outcomes following TLMS versus XRT, suggesting a need for increased understanding of how tumor location and depth impact voice outcomes. Level of Evidence: 5 Laryngoscope, 134:3686–3694, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. Methods: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. Results: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55–2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. Conclusions: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. Trial registration: NCT03806738. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of shared decision-making (SDM) into undergraduate oncology education represents a critical evolution in medical pedagogy, reflecting the growing complexity and patient-centric focus of contemporary healthcare. This paper introduces a comprehensive pedagogical framework designed to embed SDM within the undergraduate medical curriculum, particularly in oncology, where the multiplicity of treatment options and their profound impact on patient life underscore the necessity of this approach. Grounded in a systematic literature review and aligned with established educational theories, this framework proposes twelve strategic approaches to cultivate future physicians proficient in both clinical acumen and patient-collaborative decision-making. The framework emphasizes real-world clinical experience, role-playing, case studies, and decision aids to deepen students' understanding of SDM. It advocates for the development of communication skills, ethical deliberation, and cultural competence, recognizing the multifaceted nature of patient care. The inclusion of patient narratives and evidence-based decision-making further enriches the curriculum, offering a holistic view of patient care. Additionally, the integration of digital tools within the SDM process acknowledges the evolving technological landscape in healthcare. The paper also addresses challenges in implementing this framework, such as curricular constraints and the need for educator training. It underscores the importance of continual evaluation and adaptation of these strategies to the dynamic field of medical education and practice. Overall, this comprehensive approach aims not only to enhance the quality of oncological care but also to prepare medical students for the complexities of modern medicine, where patient involvement in decision-making is both a necessity and an expectation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objective: The Individual Care Plan (ICP) for pediatric palliative care was developed to provide person-centered care for the individual child and family. Currently, a lack of clarity remains regarding the use and function of the ICP in daily practice. To further implement the ICP, it is important to identify how parents and healthcare professionals use the ICP and which obstacles or benefits are experienced. Methods: This mixed-method study used qualitative interviews and quantitative questionnaires in (bereaved) parents and healthcare professionals with experience with the ICP. Results: Parents and healthcare professionals used the ICP to establish a joint plan for care and treatment of the child to coordinate care and to achieve child- and family-centered care. This includes both obstacles that complicate achieving care goals and benefits that make it easier. Furthermore, responsibilities for the ICP remained unclear, and there was no set point in the illness trajectory for drawing up the ICP. Conclusions: Parents and healthcare professionals use the ICP as intended. However, uncertainties regarding timing, roles and responsibilities prevent optimal use of the ICP. Agreements on timing and responsibilities are needed for further ICP implementation in daily pediatric palliative care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular conditions, deprescribing of glucose-lowering, blood pressure-lowering and/or lipid-lowering medication is recommended when they age, and their health status deteriorates. So far, deprescribing rates of these so-called cardiometabolic medications are low. A review of challenges and interventions addressing these challenges in this population is pertinent. Areas covered: We first provide an overview of relevant deprescribing recommendations. Next, we review challenges for healthcare providers (HCPs) to deprescribe cardiometabolic medication and provide insight in the patient and caregiver perspective on deprescribing. We summarize findings from research on implementing deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication and reflect on strategies to enhance deprescribing. We have used a combination of methods to search for relevant articles. Expert opinion: There is a need for rigorous development and evaluation of intervention strategies aimed at proactive deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. To address challenges at different levels, these should be multifaceted interventions. All stakeholders must become aware of the relevance of deintensifying medication in this population. Education and training for HCPs and patients should support patient-centered communication and shared decision-making. Development of procedures and tools to select eligible patients and conduct targeted medication reviews are important for implementation of deprescribing in routine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Physiotherapy Canada is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Previous studies have shown that shared decision-making (SDM) between a practitioner and a patient strengthens the ideal of treatment adherence. This study employed a multi-method approach to SDM in healthcare to reinforce the theoretical and methodological grounds of this argument. As the study design, self-reported survey items and experimental vignettes were combined in one electronic questionnaire. This technique aimed to analyze the effects of previous experiences and the current preferences regarding SDM on the intentions to follow-through with the medical recommendations. Method: Using quantitative data collected from the members of the Finnish Pensioners' Federation (N = 1610), this study focused on the important and growing population of older adults as healthcare consumers. Illustrated vignettes were used in the evaluation of expected adherence to both vaccination and the treatment of an illness, depending on the decision-making style varying among the repeated scenarios. In a within-subjects study design, each study subject acted as their own control. Results: The findings demonstrated that SDM correlates with expected adherence to a treatment and vaccination. Both the retrospective experiences and prospective aspirations of SDM in clinical encounters supported the patients' expected adherence to vaccination and treatment while decreasing the probability of pseudo-compliance. The association between SDM and expected adherence was not affected by the perceived health of the respondents. However, the associations among the expected adherence and decision-making styles were found to differ between the treatment and vaccination scenarios. Conclusions: SDM enables expected treatment adherence among older adults. Thus, the multi-method study emphasizes the importance of SDM in various healthcare encounters. The findings further imply that SDM research benefits from questionnaires combining self-report methods and experimental study designs. Further cross-validation studies using various types of written and illustrated scenarios are encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse events (AEs) are commonly reported in clinical studies using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), an international standard for drug safety monitoring. However, the technical language of MedDRA makes it challenging for patients and clinicians to share understanding and therefore to make shared decisions about medical interventions. In this project, people with lived experience of depression and antidepressant treatment worked with clinicians and researchers to co-design an online dictionary of AEs associated with antidepressants, taking into account its ease of use and applicability to real-world settings. Methods: Through a pre-defined literature search, we identified MedDRA-coded AEs from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants used in the treatment of depression. In collaboration with the McPin Foundation, four co-design workshops with a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) and one independent focus group (FG) were conducted to produce user-friendly translations of AE terms. Guiding principles for translation were co-designed with McPin/LEAP members and defined before the finalisation of Clinical Codes (CCs, or non-technical terms to represent specific AE concepts). FG results were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. Results: Starting from 522 trials identified by the search, 736 MedDRA-coded AE terms were translated into 187 CCs, which balanced key factors identified as important to the LEAP and FG (namely, breadth, specificity, generalisability, patient-understandability and acceptability). Work with the LEAP showed that a user-friendly language of AEs should aim to mitigate stigma, acknowledge the multiple levels of comprehension in 'lay' language and balance the need for semantic accuracy with user-friendliness. Guided by these principles, an online dictionary of AEs was co-designed and made freely available (https://thesymptomglossary.com). The digital tool was perceived by the LEAP and FG as a resource which could feasibly improve antidepressant treatment by facilitating the accurate, meaningful expression of preferences about potential harms through a shared decision-making process. Conclusions: This dictionary was developed in English around AEs from antidepressants in depression but it can be adapted to different languages and cultural contexts, and can also become a model for other interventions and disorders (i.e., antipsychotics in schizophrenia). Co-designed digital resources may improve the patient experience by helping to deliver personalised information on potential benefits and harms in an evidence-based, preference-sensitive way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Design Data Sources Review Methods Results Conclusion Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care Impact Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution To explore patients' and community nurses' perceptions and experiences of shared decision‐making in the home.Integrative review.CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Psycinfo, Medline and Social Services Abstracts were searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods papers published between 1 December 2001 and 31 October 2023.A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken using defined inclusion criteria. The included papers were appraised for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. Relevant data were extracted and thematically analysed.Fourteen papers comprising 13 research studies were included. Patients attached great importance to their right to be involved in decision‐making and noted feeling valued as a unique individual. Communication and trust between the patient and nurse were perceived as fundamental. However, shared decision‐making does not always occur in practice. Nurses described tension in managing patients' involvement in decision‐making.The findings demonstrate that although patients and community nurses appreciate participating in shared decision‐making within the home, there are obstacles to achieving a collaborative process. This is especially relevant when there are fundamentally different perspectives on the decision being made. More research is needed to gain further understanding of how shared decision‐making plays out in practice and to understand the tensions that patients and nurses may experience.This paper argues that shared decision‐making is more than the development of a relationship where the patient can express their views (though of course, this is important). Shared decision‐making requires acknowledgement that the patient has the right to full information and should be empowered to choose between options. Nurses should not assume that shared decision‐making in community nursing is easy to facilitate and should recognize the tensions that might exist when true patient choice is enabled.This paper demonstrates how the idea of shared decision‐making needs to be explored in the light of everyday practice so that challenges and barriers can be overcome. In particular, the tensions that arise when patients and nurses do not share the same perspective. This paper speaks to the potential of a gap surrounding shared decision‐making in theory and how it plays out in practice.The reporting of this review was guided by the 2020 guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (Page et al., 2021).This review was carried out as part of a wider study for which service users have been consulted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is the process by which patients and clinicians exchange information and preferences to come to joint healthcare decisions. Clinical dashboards can support SDM by collecting, distilling, and presenting critical information, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), to be shared at points of care and in between appointments. We describe the implementation strategies and outcomes of a multistakeholder collaborative process known as "co-design" to develop a PRO-informed clinical dashboard to support SDM for patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Across 14 sessions, two multidisciplinary teams comprising patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders iteratively co-designed an SDM dashboard for either advanced cancer (N = 25) or CKD (N = 24). Eligible patients, care partners, and frontline clinicians were identified by six physician champions. The co-design process included four key steps: (1) define "the problem", (2) establish context of use, (3) build a consensus on design, and (4) define and test specifications. We also evaluated our success in implementing the co-design strategy using measures of fidelity, acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and effectiveness which were collected throughout the process. Results: Mean (M) scores across implementation measures of the co-design process were high, including observer-rated fidelity and adoption of co-design practices (M = 19.1 on a 7–21 scale, N = 36 ratings across 9 sessions), as well as acceptability based on the perceived degree of SDM that occurred during the co-design process (M = 10.4 on a 0 to 12 adapted collaboRATE scale). Capturing the feasibility and adoption of convening multistakeholder co-design teams, min–max normalized scores (ranging from 0 to 1) of stakeholder representation demonstrated that, on average, 95% of stakeholder types were represented for cancer sessions (M = 0.95) and 85% for CKD sessions (M = 0.85). The co-design process was rated as either "fully" or "partially" effective by 100% of respondents, in creating a dashboard that met its intended objective. Conclusions: A co-design process was successfully implemented to develop SDM clinical dashboards for advanced cancer and CKD care. We discuss key strategies and learnings from this process that may aid others in the development and uptake of patient-centered healthcare innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In northern rural Sweden, telemedicine is used to improve access to healthcare and to provide patient-centered care. In emergency care during on-call hours, video-conference systems are used to connect the physicians to the rest of the team – creating 'distributed teams'. Patient participation is a core competency for healthcare professionals. Knowledge about how distributed teamwork affects patient participation is missing. The aim was to investigate if and how teamwork affecting patient participation, as well as clinicians' perceptions regarding shared decision-making differ between co-located and distributed emergency teams. Methods: In an observational study with a randomized cross-over design, healthcare professionals (n = 51) participated in authentic teams (n = 17) in two scripted simulated emergency scenarios with a standardized patient: one as a co-located team and the other as a distributed team. Team performances were filmed and observed by independent raters using the PIC-ET tool to rate patient participation behavior. The participants individually filled out the Dyadic OPTION questionnaire after the respective scenarios to measure perceptions of shared decision-making. Scores in both instruments were translated to percentage of a maximum score. The observational data between the two settings were compared using linear mixed-effects regression models and the self-reported questionnaire data were compared using one-way ANOVA. Neither the participants nor the observers were blinded to the allocations. Results: A significant difference in observer rated overall patient participation behavior was found, mean 51.1 (± 11.5) % for the co-located teams vs 44.7 (± 8.6) % for the distributed teams (p = 0.02). In the PIC-ET tool category 'Sharing power', the scores decreased from 14.4 (± 12.4) % in the co-located teams to 2 (± 4.4) % in the distributed teams (p = 0.001). Co-located teams scored in mean 60.5% (± 14.4) when self-assessing shared decision-making, vs 55.8% (± 15.1) in the distributed teams (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Team behavior enabling patient participation was found decreased in distributed teams, especially regarding sharing power with the patient. This finding was also mirrored in the self-assessments of the healthcare professionals. This study highlights the risk of an increased power asymmetry between patients and distributed emergency teams and can serve as a basis for further research, education, and quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The promising results achieved in male hormonal contraceptive trials over the last decades suggest that new male contraceptives could hit the market soon. In shared decision‐making counseling, couples and their healthcare provider collaborate to make decisions about contraception choices. This model of contraceptive counseling could aid men in taking responsibility for contraception and women in trusting their partners in family planning. The shared decision‐making process in contraceptive counseling requires partners to provide input on their preferences, values, and desires, while healthcare professionals share medical knowledge and evidence‐based information.It has been proven that this method leads to higher adherence and satisfaction. To ensure that contraceptive counseling is inclusive, fair, and supportive of different reproductive experiences and needs, it is crucial to incorporate the Reproductive Justice Framework into counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Objective Search Strategy Selection Criteria Data Collection and Analysis Main Results Conclusions Approximately 50% women who give birth after obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) develop anal incontinence (AI) over their lifetime.To evaluate current evidence for a protective benefit of planned caesarean section (CS) to prevent AI after OASI.MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase 1974–2024, CINAHL and Cochrane to 7 February 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42022372442).All studies reporting outcomes after OASI and a subsequent birth, by any mode.Eighty‐six of 2646 screened studies met inclusion criteria, with nine studies suitable to meta‐analyse the primary outcome of ‘adjusted AI’ after OASI and subsequent birth. Subgroups: short‐term AI, long‐term AI, AI in asymptomatic women. Secondary outcomes: total AI, quality of life, satisfaction/regret, solid/liquid/flatal incontinence, faecal urgency, AI in women with and without subsequent birth, change in AI pre‐ to post‐ subsequent birth.There was no evidence of a difference in adjusted AI after subsequent vaginal birth compared with CS after OASI across all time periods (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72–1.20; 9 studies, 2104 participants, I2 = 0% p = 0.58), for subgroup analyses or secondary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in AI in women with or without subsequent birth (OR = 1.00 95% CI 0.65–1.54; 10 studies, 970 participants, I2 = 35% p = 0.99), or pre‐ to post‐ subsequent birth (OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.51–1.25; 13 studies, 5496 participants, I2 = 73% p = 0.31).Due to low evidence quality, we are unable to determine whether planned caesarean is protective against AI after OASI. Higher quality evidence is required to guide personalised decision‐making for asymptomatic women and to determine the effect of subsequent birth mode on long‐term AI outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to identify the challenges faced by nurses engaged in rheumatology care in Japan. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey of nurses in Japan in 2020 on challenges experienced in rheumatology care. The participants were nurses certified by the Japan Rheumatism Foundation. Participants' answers were coded and categorized based on relevant phrases and words. Content analysis was performed on the findings. Results: Responses were collected from 162 participants, and a total of 228 issues were identified. Eighteen categories with 56 subcategories emerged from the data analysis, which were grouped into five types of challenges: (1) communication, (2) understanding, (3) expertise, (4) system, and (5) collaboration. In particular, the results highlighted deficiencies in needs-based multidisciplinary team care. Conclusion: This study elucidated issues experienced by rheumatology nurses in clinical settings in Japan. Furthermore, this investigation revealed the necessity of patient-centred multidisciplinary team care, including health professionals, patients, and other relevant individuals. This study provided practical directions to facilitate the implementation of effective care focused on improving patients' quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]